Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message


1EyedJacks -> Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question (7/26/2007 7:50:00 AM)

Hi, can anyone tell me if there is still a bug regarding bombers attacking shipping at altitudes below 10k? I seem to remember an altitude range to keep the bombers out of - something like 6k thru 9k was the range in which bombers were to accurate? Or maybe it was something about a flak-free zone?

Does it make a difference if the bombers are 2E or 4E bombers when flying below 10k against shipping?




Yamato hugger -> RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question (7/26/2007 8:28:27 AM)

Between 6 and 9 is the infamous "flak gap". It isnt that there is no flak, it just its too high for the light guns, and too low for the big ones. This being in stock games. Most mods correct this problem.




castor troy -> RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question (7/26/2007 12:16:36 PM)

If he attacks shipping then there is no flak gap IIRC as ship based flak is treated different. Though the flak gap exists (the Japanese flak gap... [:D]) when you attack land targets.

If you are allowed to, then set your bombers on 6000 ft naval attack which is the best altitude to attack ships with level bombers IMO.




spence -> RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question (7/26/2007 1:29:30 PM)

There is no flak gap vs shipping.

If you're not the "ATATT" IJN the most effective altitude in the game against shipping for most level bombers is 1000 ft - you will get substantially more hits. 100 ft is even better but you'll not have any sqdrns experienced enough to do it (If they're under 80 exp they will seldom launch if set to 100 ft). The thing is you will also get hit by flak a lot more the lower you go and you'll take an additional morale hit which after a couple of missions might well put your sqdrn out of action until you withdraw it and rest it for 2 weeks. But if hits are what you want or need then go in at 1000 ft.

As for opponents who say it's gamey to attack with 4E bombers at any altitude under 10000000000000 ft (or whatever) tell them to "READ A BOOK" if all they want is to repeat history.




m10bob -> RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question (7/26/2007 2:46:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

There is no flak gap vs shipping.

If you're not the "ATATT" IJN the most effective altitude in the game against shipping for most level bombers is 1000 ft - you will get substantially more hits. 100 ft is even better but you'll not have any sqdrns experienced enough to do it (If they're under 80 exp they will seldom launch if set to 100 ft). The thing is you will also get hit by flak a lot more the lower you go and you'll take an additional morale hit which after a couple of missions might well put your sqdrn out of action until you withdraw it and rest it for 2 weeks. But if hits are what you want or need then go in at 1000 ft.

As for opponents who say it's gamey to attack with 4E bombers at any altitude under 10000000000000 ft (or whatever) tell them to "READ A BOOK" if all they want is to repeat history.


Spence and I are in total agreement on this, but for those folks Spence refers to regardings the myths of 4 engine-bombers, the first real low-level "skip-bombing" type attacks in Pappy Gunn/Gen Kinneys' area was done by B 17's.
It was realized that with the possibility of loss amongst these planes being highter at this low level, it would be more prudent to revert to B 25's and A 20's..


http://www.afa.org/magazine/valor/0594valor.asp




castor troy -> RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question (7/26/2007 3:57:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

There is no flak gap vs shipping.

If you're not the "ATATT" IJN the most effective altitude in the game against shipping for most level bombers is 1000 ft - you will get substantially more hits. 100 ft is even better but you'll not have any sqdrns experienced enough to do it (If they're under 80 exp they will seldom launch if set to 100 ft). The thing is you will also get hit by flak a lot more the lower you go and you'll take an additional morale hit which after a couple of missions might well put your sqdrn out of action until you withdraw it and rest it for 2 weeks. But if hits are what you want or need then go in at 1000 ft.

As for opponents who say it's gamey to attack with 4E bombers at any altitude under 10000000000000 ft (or whatever) tell them to "READ A BOOK" if all they want is to repeat history.


Spence and I are in total agreement on this, but for those folks Spence refers to regardings the myths of 4 engine-bombers, the first real low-level "skip-bombing" type attacks in Pappy Gunn/Gen Kinneys' area was done by B 17's.
It was realized that with the possibility of loss amongst these planes being highter at this low level, it would be more prudent to revert to B 25's and A 20's..


http://www.afa.org/magazine/valor/0594valor.asp



the problem we see in the game though is if you allow 4Es to skip bomb or bomb at low altitude is that soon you find out that 200 B-24 show up over KB to clobber it with no chance to defend against. And not just the number is "strange".

I know, there are also unlimited Betty torps, thousands of second generation IJA fighters, too much IJN shipping....

but the question remains, even if the first skip bombing runs were made by B-17s, why havenīt I read about 200 B-17s doing skip bombing runs against ships? If you want to play an all is possible game, no problem. Otherwise use house rules to make it at least "playable"...




rtrapasso -> RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question (7/26/2007 4:05:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

There is no flak gap vs shipping.

If you're not the "ATATT" IJN the most effective altitude in the game against shipping for most level bombers is 1000 ft - you will get substantially more hits. 100 ft is even better but you'll not have any sqdrns experienced enough to do it (If they're under 80 exp they will seldom launch if set to 100 ft). The thing is you will also get hit by flak a lot more the lower you go and you'll take an additional morale hit which after a couple of missions might well put your sqdrn out of action until you withdraw it and rest it for 2 weeks. But if hits are what you want or need then go in at 1000 ft.

As for opponents who say it's gamey to attack with 4E bombers at any altitude under 10000000000000 ft (or whatever) tell them to "READ A BOOK" if all they want is to repeat history.


Spence and I are in total agreement on this, but for those folks Spence refers to regardings the myths of 4 engine-bombers, the first real low-level "skip-bombing" type attacks in Pappy Gunn/Gen Kinneys' area was done by B 17's.
It was realized that with the possibility of loss amongst these planes being highter at this low level, it would be more prudent to revert to B 25's and A 20's..


http://www.afa.org/magazine/valor/0594valor.asp



the problem we see in the game though is if you allow 4Es to skip bomb or bomb at low altitude is that soon you find out that 200 B-24 show up over KB to clobber it with no chance to defend against. And not just the number is "strange".

I know, there are also unlimited Betty torps, thousands of second generation IJA fighters, too much IJN shipping....

but the question remains, even if the first skip bombing runs were made by B-17s, why havenīt I read about 200 B-17s doing skip bombing runs against ships? If you want to play an all is possible game, no problem. Otherwise use house rules to make it at least "playable"...


About the time B-17s were experimenting with this, they were being withdrawn from most combat duties and their job being taken over by B-24s.

B-24s had duties that kept them busy elsewhere, and skip-bombing duties were turned over to speedier B-25s, etc. Losses at 100' were lower than attacking from higher altitude, and it took less training. Of course, this is just the opposite from what happens in the game.

B-24s as mentioned did carry out numerous bombing attacks at 1000' - at night (not in game). Usually these were individual attacks - there weren't squadrons conducting them all at once.




Gem35 -> RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question (7/26/2007 4:07:02 PM)

You can also mod the game and remove all the 4 engine bombers so KB can sail around and destroy everything in it's path just like it happened historicaly.
While you are modding, why not get rid of all Allied fighter planes like the corsair and lightning.
That way KB for sure won't ever have to deal with fighter cover and sail around destroying everything in it's path as happened historicaly.




castor troy -> RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question (7/26/2007 4:13:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gem35

You can also mod the game and remove all the 4 engine bombers so KB can sail around and destroy everything in it's path just like it happened historicaly.
While you are modding, why not get rid of all Allied fighter planes like the corsair and lightning.
That way KB for sure won't ever have to deal with fighter cover and sail around destroying everything in it's path as happened historicaly.



I donīt even know if I should take such a statement serious...

If you want to play a PBEM where 200 4E bombers are used in one day to attack KB, or no matter what other task force, then just go ahead and be happy with it... hopefully you will find someone to play longer then 2 weeks.

Wonder if Iīm a strategic genius but when Iīm playing Allied (longest game is so far in 10/43) I had no problems to deal with KB even with not being a smart ass while using "strategic bombers" in masses on naval attack. A B-25 on 6000 ft does a good job and you get "realistic" results.

Using 200 4E bombers at once at 100 ft, 1000 ft, 6000 ft naval attack results in more hits on ships than what 200 bombers achieved against factory complexes bigger than the town I live in...

just weird, but as I said, if you like be happy, Iīm happy with you!

There is so much "wrong" in the game, wonder why people want to make it even worse...




Charbroiled -> RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question (7/26/2007 4:38:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gem35

You can also mod the game and remove all the 4 engine bombers so KB can sail around and destroy everything in it's path just like it happened historicaly.
While you are modding, why not get rid of all Allied fighter planes like the corsair and lightning.
That way KB for sure won't ever have to deal with fighter cover and sail around destroying everything in it's path as happened historicaly.



I donīt even know if I should take such a statement serious...

If you want to play a PBEM where 200 4E bombers are used in one day to attack KB, or no matter what other task force, then just go ahead and be happy with it... hopefully you will find someone to play longer then 2 weeks.

Wonder if Iīm a strategic genius but when Iīm playing Allied (longest game is so far in 10/43) I had no problems to deal with KB even with not being a smart ass while using "strategic bombers" in masses on naval attack. A B-25 on 6000 ft does a good job and you get "realistic" results.

Using 200 4E bombers at once at 100 ft, 1000 ft, 6000 ft naval attack results in more hits on ships than what 200 bombers achieved against factory complexes bigger than the town I live in...

just weird, but as I said, if you like be happy, Iīm happy with you!

There is so much "wrong" in the game, wonder why people want to make it even worse...



So, is it "OK" to attack a TF with 200 Betty's?




goodboyladdie -> RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question (7/26/2007 4:40:25 PM)

Hi Mike

I read these replies and am even more confused! Is 9000ft an ok height for 4E on Naval Attack in the esteemed opinions of forum members? How much of a difference will the extra 1000ft make if set at 10000ft as per Mike's request? I traditionally use 6000ft because it is the default Naval Attack setting for the game and is quite effective. I think the problem with early war Jap ships is that their AAA is pants. Mike and I are playing Iron Storm and his ships have a lot more AA guns. In the incident that caused our discussion on a revision of our House Rules I managed to get a few hits on three or four of his CVs. It cost me over 120 planes over a two day turn, although some of those were fghters over PH. I think this was quite realistic (due to NikMod leakers - in stock I would have lost all planes for no hits with the ZB still in effect) and I think only 10 bombs out of the hundreds dropped actually scored hits. My success against the straggling Kaga the next day was down to the fact that she had been left behind by the rest of the KB and is not really an accurate test/measure. The vulnerability of the unarmoured flight decks of the Jap CVs, even to 500lb bombs, is something that Alikchi mentions in his set up notes.

I am happy to compromise as it is vitally important that both Mike and I enjoy the game. Mike did the same for me when he did not attack Singapore using the first turn surprise advantage so that I could get my RN CVs out at sea where they would have been in real life with the Brit's increased preparedness levels in the Iron Storm scenario. It's a great game and I am very grateful to Mike for taking me on, even though he is so very busy.




castor troy -> RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question (7/26/2007 5:11:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gem35

You can also mod the game and remove all the 4 engine bombers so KB can sail around and destroy everything in it's path just like it happened historicaly.
While you are modding, why not get rid of all Allied fighter planes like the corsair and lightning.
That way KB for sure won't ever have to deal with fighter cover and sail around destroying everything in it's path as happened historicaly.



I donīt even know if I should take such a statement serious...

If you want to play a PBEM where 200 4E bombers are used in one day to attack KB, or no matter what other task force, then just go ahead and be happy with it... hopefully you will find someone to play longer then 2 weeks.

Wonder if Iīm a strategic genius but when Iīm playing Allied (longest game is so far in 10/43) I had no problems to deal with KB even with not being a smart ass while using "strategic bombers" in masses on naval attack. A B-25 on 6000 ft does a good job and you get "realistic" results.

Using 200 4E bombers at once at 100 ft, 1000 ft, 6000 ft naval attack results in more hits on ships than what 200 bombers achieved against factory complexes bigger than the town I live in...

just weird, but as I said, if you like be happy, Iīm happy with you!

There is so much "wrong" in the game, wonder why people want to make it even worse...



So, is it "OK" to attack a TF with 200 Betty's?



Canīt remember that I said that... Did I? For me itīs 90% as wrong as 200 B-17s. 90% because of the fact that at least it was a Navy bomber, not an Army bomber and it was a medium, tactical bomber, not a heavy, mostly strategic bomber...

And if you read my previous posts, I clearly said that there are enough other things wrong, also on the Japanese side. Using 200 4E bombers on 100 or 1000 ft on naval attack just makes it worse, surely NOT better...




Gem35 -> RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question (7/26/2007 5:21:39 PM)

I just get tired of folks complaining about the game, it's been out for almost 4 years and you still cry about the 4E bombers, or the game has so many things wrong.
The OP asked about what altitude folks fly their bombers at, not what is "wrong" with the game.
/hijack off.




Charbroiled -> RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question (7/26/2007 5:25:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gem35

You can also mod the game and remove all the 4 engine bombers so KB can sail around and destroy everything in it's path just like it happened historicaly.
While you are modding, why not get rid of all Allied fighter planes like the corsair and lightning.
That way KB for sure won't ever have to deal with fighter cover and sail around destroying everything in it's path as happened historicaly.



I donīt even know if I should take such a statement serious...

If you want to play a PBEM where 200 4E bombers are used in one day to attack KB, or no matter what other task force, then just go ahead and be happy with it... hopefully you will find someone to play longer then 2 weeks.

Wonder if Iīm a strategic genius but when Iīm playing Allied (longest game is so far in 10/43) I had no problems to deal with KB even with not being a smart ass while using "strategic bombers" in masses on naval attack. A B-25 on 6000 ft does a good job and you get "realistic" results.

Using 200 4E bombers at once at 100 ft, 1000 ft, 6000 ft naval attack results in more hits on ships than what 200 bombers achieved against factory complexes bigger than the town I live in...

just weird, but as I said, if you like be happy, Iīm happy with you!

There is so much "wrong" in the game, wonder why people want to make it even worse...



So, is it "OK" to attack a TF with 200 Betty's?



Canīt remember that I said that... Did I? For me itīs 90% as wrong as 200 B-17s. 90% because of the fact that at least it was a Navy bomber, not an Army bomber and it was a medium, tactical bomber, not a heavy, mostly strategic bomber...

And if you read my previous posts, I clearly said that there are enough other things wrong, also on the Japanese side. Using 200 4E bombers on 100 or 1000 ft on naval attack just makes it worse, surely NOT better...


No offence meant.[&o] I just have a problem with constraints on allied 4E (which seems to be the rave lately), but no constrants on other aspects of the game that effect Japan.

Recently, I agreed to a 20,000 ft min ceiling for 4E naval attacks. In hind sight I should have never agreed. My opponent took Midway in the first week and is now attacking PH with everything (and I do mean everything) in mid January 42. I'm not complaining about him attacking Midway or PH, because there was no houserule against this, but if I had known that this was the type of game we were going to play I would have seen no reason to agree to limits to 4Es.




Barb -> RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question (7/26/2007 5:46:18 PM)

In my PBEM we are using 4E 15,000ft rule and for 2E 6,000ft until 1/43 (as a result of old doctrine), few units (no more then 1-2 squadrons) are allowed to fly lower at same time.




1EyedJacks -> RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question (7/26/2007 5:48:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

Hi Mike

I read these replies and am even more confused! Is 9000ft an ok height for 4E on Naval Attack in the esteemed opinions of forum members? How much of a difference will the extra 1000ft make if set at 10000ft as per Mike's request? I traditionally use 6000ft because it is the default Naval Attack setting for the game and is quite effective. I think the problem with early war Jap ships is that their AAA is pants. Mike and I are playing Iron Storm and his ships have a lot more AA guns. In the incident that caused our discussion on a revision of our House Rules I managed to get a few hits on three or four of his CVs. It cost me over 120 planes over a two day turn, although some of those were fghters over PH. I think this was quite realistic (due to NikMod leakers - in stock I would have lost all planes for no hits with the ZB still in effect) and I think only 10 bombs out of the hundreds dropped actually scored hits. My success against the straggling Kaga the next day was down to the fact that she had been left behind by the rest of the KB and is not really an accurate test/measure. The vulnerability of the unarmoured flight decks of the Jap CVs, even to 500lb bombs, is something that Alikchi mentions in his set up notes.

I am happy to compromise as it is vitally important that both Mike and I enjoy the game. Mike did the same for me when he did not attack Singapore using the first turn surprise advantage so that I could get my RN CVs out at sea where they would have been in real life with the Brit's increased preparedness levels in the Iron Storm scenario. It's a great game and I am very grateful to Mike for taking me on, even though he is so very busy.


<laughter>. Hi Carl. I hear you on the confusion. I'm beginning to think we should scrap the 10k rule and let you continue to set the altitude of your bombers to anything your heart desires. It sounds like there is no "flak-gap" for naval attacks, which is what my poor memory seemed to recall from reading the forum.

I had also thought the house rule of 10k for 4E bombers was to keep things "realistic" as people posting seemed to think the number of hits by 4E bombers were "unrealistically" (if that is a word <grin>) in favor of the big bombers. This rule might be driven by the "Japanese Fanboyz" though.

My experience in the Iron Storm Mod is that there is very little I can throw at the 4Es as Japan. Even with the dreaded zero bonus in effect it appears the 4E bombers fly to-and-fro w/o worries of japanes fighters...

Still, I'll be getting Tojo's earlier in this game and there are things I can do strategically to help mitigate the effects.

Carl, what I'd like to recommend is that we watch this thread for a day or two and if nothing further comes up regarding a problem with the actual game mechanics, then we should probably scrap the 10k rule and let you use 4E bombers as you choose.

Also, thanks very much for sticking with me while I'm dealing with challenges at work. I really enjoy the mod, the toys that are available in this mod, and the excellent game you have been playing as the allied faction. Things are insanity-cubed at work right now but I really expect things to return to normal by late August <fingers crossed>.




goodboyladdie -> RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question (7/26/2007 10:02:48 PM)

Hi Mike

I'll try 9000ft and see what happens, if that's ok with you? I may even try 10000ft or 12000ft dependent on how scared I am of the big bad Japanese wolf at the time. I would not want you to feel in any way cheated. Bearing in mind the limited numbers of 4E I have available until at least June 42, I think a greater height to cut down on casualties is something that the Allies might well have considered. After June 1942, perhaps we could discuss it again as the tactical situation changes as we each get more capable fighters? How robust is your 4E bomber? Would it stand up to Allied flak at 6000ft? If you are planning to use yours higher, I am happy to do the same. I expect that when I eventually go on to the offensive and you are defending we'll be adjusting the HR to suit the strategic/tactical situation again.

As always my friend, it is a pleasure to play you. I am very lucky in having you and Scott as opponents. I see the unresolved issues that others seem to have with their opponents and am very grateful to have mine. [&o]




spence -> RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question (7/27/2007 1:51:09 AM)

The complaints against "200 4E bombers attacking KB at 1000 ft" seem mostly to revolve around the idea that USAAF doctrine did not support/include/advocate such attacks. The problem as I see it is that IJN doctrine did not support/include/advocate bringing KB anywhere near a place that could base 200 4E bombers. If that meant surrendering 1000 miles of ocean to the Allies then that's what KB did.
They were raiders not stand up fighters for air supremacy and the IJN recognized that. The game enhances the ability of KB to perform in the latter role. If the IJN Player is going to "experiment" with rather unlikely air supremacy missions against large concentrations of Allied LBA he should be prepared for the possible consequences and not cry foul when the Allied Player refuses to play by the "historical" rules.

(The concept of asymmetric warfare where one side follows rules/conventions and the other is free to ignore them has no place in a game about WWII IMHO.)




Dili -> RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question (7/27/2007 3:37:52 AM)

Do the 4E or for that matter any bomber with many bombs  have a diferent routine to atack ships and land? I remember reading here that many bombs increase much more the damage while attacking air bases. I remember the extent of damage was significant. The problem of biggers attacking a ship  is that probably the routine is the same and there is a chance that a full stick of bombs hit a ship when that is complete irrealistic and the routine should have invalidate a second hit.




spence -> RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question (7/27/2007 3:43:05 AM)

Pretty sure a single plane is allowed a single hit by the routine, that is a B17 is not going to land a whole stick of bombs on a ship.




ny59giants -> RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question (7/27/2007 7:24:40 AM)

Mike,
I'm using 11,000 for the 4e bombers on naval attack. Since 4e's were used for other missions (Oil/Resources/AF), I don't mind.

P.S. - Did you sink Boise yet??  [:D][:D][:D]




donnie_1974_texas -> RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question (7/27/2007 9:24:00 AM)

I really don't have much qualms with altitude of missions except for some of the ways the game models things, which I think is what Castor is saying raises some problems.

For example,

1) 4E bombers, honestly, they hit almost all the time even at 12-15K feet once they reach 70+ experience. I believe the reason is that the game treats each bomb individually for targetting purposes. Thus, they all get X% chance to hit. Yes, however, only one bomb is allowed to hit per level bomber - but, when you have so many on one plane one will probably hit. Reality is, I doubt too many B17s were going to make a dozen passes over a target to drop their bombs one at a time - they dropped sticks of bombs typically, especially on higher altitude missions (and 12-15K is really not high altitude compared to the levels they were flying at in Europe).

2) On 4E bombers and level bombers in general. They are able to destroy industry and airfields very easily. Either that or cost to repair is too expensive - cost to expand factories may be too cheap by the way (resulting in the Japanese player with good management being able to make tons of planes - all of course with the interchangeable Nak and Mit. engines...).

Maybe hitting industry and resources in the undeveloped SRA should be easier than in the middle of a crowded German city or in a highly disperesed Japanese homeland industry of small shops - but, probably not as easy as it is in WitP. 30-40 B17s in range of your resources and oil centers - say goodbye. With a good leader with high inspiration, morale will stay up despite losses.

3) Flak - yes, there is a gap for the larger caliber AA from 6000-9000 feet. There is not enough of the light AA modelled in the game. For example, Allied infantry brigades having no AA defense at all while Zeros strafe them mercilessly at 2000 feet...I think something would have shot back, MGs in particular. There are other problems with flak. I think it generally works OK with things like defending against ground attack (when its there) and city attack. The model is perhaps wrong on Port and Airfield attacks as the bombers tend to disable a lot of the flak guns in their strikes. Of course, the other big issue is that all the flak is assumed to be at all the places - not real accurate for a 60 mile hex...

Most of the above are fundamental issues in the model and there is not much that can be done outside of changing code.

Complaints? Yeah maybe. All in all though, it is a pretty good game with extraordinary detail and complexity. Not much out there like it.




castor troy -> RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question (7/27/2007 11:31:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

The complaints against "200 4E bombers attacking KB at 1000 ft" seem mostly to revolve around the idea that USAAF doctrine did not support/include/advocate such attacks. The problem as I see it is that IJN doctrine did not support/include/advocate bringing KB anywhere near a place that could base 200 4E bombers. If that meant surrendering 1000 miles of ocean to the Allies then that's what KB did.
They were raiders not stand up fighters for air supremacy and the IJN recognized that. The game enhances the ability of KB to perform in the latter role. If the IJN Player is going to "experiment" with rather unlikely air supremacy missions against large concentrations of Allied LBA he should be prepared for the possible consequences and not cry foul when the Allied Player refuses to play by the "historical" rules.

(The concept of asymmetric warfare where one side follows rules/conventions and the other is free to ignore them has no place in a game about WWII IMHO.)




quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

The complaints against "200 4E bombers attacking KB at 1000 ft" seem mostly to revolve around the idea that USAAF doctrine did not support/include/advocate such attacks. The problem as I see it is that IJN doctrine did not support/include/advocate bringing KB anywhere near a place that could base 200 4E bombers. If that meant surrendering 1000 miles of ocean to the Allies then that's what KB did.
They were raiders not stand up fighters for air supremacy and the IJN recognized that. The game enhances the ability of KB to perform in the latter role. If the IJN Player is going to "experiment" with rather unlikely air supremacy missions against large concentrations of Allied LBA he should be prepared for the possible consequences and not cry foul when the Allied Player refuses to play by the "historical" rules.

(The concept of asymmetric warfare where one side follows rules/conventions and the other is free to ignore them has no place in a game about WWII IMHO.)



everything you write is fine... though perhaps you should come away from "donīt bring KB within 1000 miles of any Allied base size 5 because 200 4Es. Donīt bring ANY ship in range of 14 hexes of an Allied base size 5 because EVERY day there are 200 4Es ready to strike at any target they want.

Not even a third of the planes should be ready for a strike! Yes, also 200 Betties can be stacked at one base. Yes also there shouldnīt be 200 ready... no doubt. But if you want to talk about USAAF heavy bombers and really think those should be ready 100% to either attack an airfield OR at the same time be ready to attack shipping at 100 or 1000 ft then youīre off, completely. Again, same goes for Japanese.

The difference is huge though. As Allied Iīm having perhaps 700 (or even more??) 4Es in my game in late 43, while I have perhaps 300 Betties as Japanese, so stacking 200 Betties in one place is just nuts, as nuts as having 2000 assault points on Wake... Stacking 170 4Es in 4 places is perfect, now you rule all your fronts... Those 4Es just NEVER would have been used in the role you describe it, you are some kind of dreaming about the USAAF sinking the whole Japanese fleet with 4Es at 100 ft like on one of those propaganda paintings. This imagination is as FANTASTIC as is the game we play. As fantastic as thinking about Betties sinking the whole US fleet. Now you will tell me that Betties use torps! Yes, they do. And with torps they can sink BBs. Yes, they do. And this is the only advantage a Betty has over a B-24. Every other target (means ship) will be sunk by the B-24. In late 43 all have such a high exp. that they donīt use 500 lb bombs in 90% of the cases I have seen so far, which means 1000 lb bombs which penetrate everything - except BBs. Put 3 1000 lb bombs into a IJN carrier or cruiser, itīs at least as dangerous for the ship as 3 torps into a USN carrier or cruiser. With the difference that I will achieve far more hits with my 80+ exp. USAAF heavy bombers at 1000 ft. (as I have 3 or 4 times more of them, carrying 4x1000 lb bombs instead of 1 torp, so 4 die rolls instead of 1 - means a higher chance to hit). While they wonīt hit 16 times more, they will devastate every TF - again, except BBs.

The 4Es are the NUMBER ONE factor in this game. It should be called 4E bombers playing fantasy in the Pacific. No completely off production model for the Japanese, no Japanese torpedoe bomber, no super duper torpedoe availability everywhere is nearly as effecting the game like the completely overmodelled 4E bombers. Donīt know how far you came in PBEM so far, though from late 42 on there is nothing as powerful as my 4E fleet. And I donīt even use them (except Navy 4Es) for attacks on ships. Iīm using them to drop more bombs than the 8th dropped in Europe, while targetting jungle strips. Airfields and ports all get wiped out (I donīt even do ressource/HI/oil attacks on occupied bases). And still this bomber fleet is so powerful, thereīs nothing that is even 10% as influencing my game.

So if you think that pilots trained for flying attacks on airfields, factories,... should achieve more hits on ships that were achieved on factory complexes in real life then be it. IMO there should have been a hardcoded difference between bomber squadrons, or bomber daitais, that makes some available for attacks on ships and some (or perhaps the majority) not available (or highly ineffective if allowed to attack ships).

Again, Iīm not saying the Japanese side is modelled anywhere more realistic, though that doesnīt make the current situation of Allied 4Es bombing in formations of hundred+ bombers at 1000 ft against 500 25mm flak guns any better. I remember again Denisohns article about Allied bombers attacking "armed merchantmen" [:D][sm=00000280.gif] in the Bismarck sea. The B-25 complained about the heavy flak fire those "armed merchantmen" put up [sm=00000280.gif]. Single Japanese merchants put up heavy flak fire??? [sm=crazy.gif] Would love to see a 4E coming in at 1000 ft against an "AA undergunned" IJN cruiser or Battleship if single cruising "armed merchantmen" are not a target that is helpless it seems. And I bet even a 4E bomber in reality wouldnīt be happy if pumped full of 25mm ammunition... Canīt be really hard to hit such a BIG target at 1000 ft and I wonder what those 4E bombers in reality would have achieved if really going in against "KB" at 1000 ft. I bet they would have gone in level bombing at 10.000 ft+ and those 200 [:D] bombers would do a "car wash" on the carriers with a very, very low hit rate...

Itīs not the same as the tests made with skip bombing against merchants...





castor troy -> RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question (7/27/2007 11:40:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Pretty sure a single plane is allowed a single hit by the routine, that is a B17 is not going to land a whole stick of bombs on a ship.



No plane is allowed to hit with more than one bomb. Though the higher the number of bombs, the higher the hit chance. Every bomb gets a die roll, which would mean that only one bomb is dropped every time, which would further mean a B-24, B-17 would do 8 attack runs. [8|] Hopefully (which I doubt) there is a difference between a medium bomber dropping bombs on ships and a heavy bomber...




herwin -> RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question (7/27/2007 12:08:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: donnie_1974_texas

I really don't have much qualms with altitude of missions except for some of the ways the game models things, which I think is what Castor is saying raises some problems.

For example,

1) 4E bombers, honestly, they hit almost all the time even at 12-15K feet once they reach 70+ experience. I believe the reason is that the game treats each bomb individually for targetting purposes. Thus, they all get X% chance to hit. Yes, however, only one bomb is allowed to hit per level bomber - but, when you have so many on one plane one will probably hit. Reality is, I doubt too many B17s were going to make a dozen passes over a target to drop their bombs one at a time - they dropped sticks of bombs typically, especially on higher altitude missions (and 12-15K is really not high altitude compared to the levels they were flying at in Europe).

2) On 4E bombers and level bombers in general. They are able to destroy industry and airfields very easily. Either that or cost to repair is too expensive - cost to expand factories may be too cheap by the way (resulting in the Japanese player with good management being able to make tons of planes - all of course with the interchangeable Nak and Mit. engines...).

Maybe hitting industry and resources in the undeveloped SRA should be easier than in the middle of a crowded German city or in a highly disperesed Japanese homeland industry of small shops - but, probably not as easy as it is in WitP. 30-40 B17s in range of your resources and oil centers - say goodbye. With a good leader with high inspiration, morale will stay up despite losses.

3) Flak - yes, there is a gap for the larger caliber AA from 6000-9000 feet. There is not enough of the light AA modelled in the game. For example, Allied infantry brigades having no AA defense at all while Zeros strafe them mercilessly at 2000 feet...I think something would have shot back, MGs in particular. There are other problems with flak. I think it generally works OK with things like defending against ground attack (when its there) and city attack. The model is perhaps wrong on Port and Airfield attacks as the bombers tend to disable a lot of the flak guns in their strikes. Of course, the other big issue is that all the flak is assumed to be at all the places - not real accurate for a 60 mile hex...

Most of the above are fundamental issues in the model and there is not much that can be done outside of changing code.

Complaints? Yeah maybe. All in all though, it is a pretty good game with extraordinary detail and complexity. Not much out there like it.



The stats show that a 4E bomber had about a 5% chance of getting a single hit on a warship in an individual attack.




ChezDaJez -> RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question (7/27/2007 12:22:24 PM)

quote:

Pretty sure a single plane is allowed a single hit by the routine, that is a B17 is not going to land a whole stick of bombs on a ship.


Don't know if that was a change in one of the later patches but I know that in v1.6 it was possible to obtain more hits vs ships than there were 4e bombers attacking.

I think the main thing with the 4e and Betty/Nell issue is for the players to reach a common ground on the use of these assets. Something on the order of 1 4e BG (48-64 aircraft)er base allowed to fly naval strike missions but must be above above 10k ft. No more than 2 Daitais of Bettys/Nells (54 aircraft) set to naval attack per base, etc... That keeps it reasonable and still allows for historical missions. I think this would force players to disperse their assets a bit more. Just a thought... As I said its up to the players in the game to decide, not anyone else.

Chez




okami -> RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question (7/27/2007 2:27:37 PM)

There seems to be a deal of animosity over this topic. The game engine does not model the 4E bomber very well and there are players who wish to use this as a tactic. They will throw the Betty and the Nell over as arguement bate, to obfuscate the historical truth. And what is that truth... 1/ Of the 1,744,000 tons of warshipping sunk during the war only 55,000 tons was attributed to Army LBA(this includes all army planes of 1,2,or 4 engines). Of the 8.900,000 tons of merchant shipping only 10.2% was sunk by army LBA. In the game a single strike of 48 B-24's can and will sink more total tonnage than was sunk in the entire war. If you don't see this as a problem that needs to be addressed by houserules I suggest you take up knitting and leave wargaming to those of us who do. As for the Betty and the Nell they are first tac bombers and second they were trained specifically for strikes against shipping. Do they get torpedoes? Yes and for this they pay with the most pathetic loadout for any and every other use for a tac bomber. They suck at bombing airfields as this is based on the number of bombs dropped, they suck because unlike allied bombers they are not immune to flak(60% of all allied combat loses of aircraft in the Pacific were attributed to AA) Is that modelled in the game? No! As the Japanese you are lucky if you shoot down 1 in 200 aircraft with AA. I have just requested in another post for a scenario which models these and I will test it over the coming weeks. I hope it models these errors well.{USSBS was used for all of the facts pertaining to Japanese ship loses listed above. pg16-17 July 1 1946} As a historical wargamer I want to refight history and see if I can do better, I don't want a program making it so I can't not do better.
Andrew




rtrapasso -> RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question (7/27/2007 2:55:01 PM)

There is a big difference in what Allied bombers COULD do and what they DID do.

The IJN did not hazard major combat forces where they could be hammered with Allied 4 EB - when such situations developed (i.e. B-24s sinking shipping off China) - they went to extreme measures to rectify the situation (i.e. - one of the biggest offensives in China was directed to deny B-24s their airfields).

Players, of course, can do all kinds of strange stuff in the game and not suffer much in the way of consequences... like sail large surface task forces into range of *large* concentrations of Allied 4 EB (or 2 EB for that matter). Historically, the IJN avoided 4 EB concentrations, and when they tried challenging even 2 EB concentrations, very bad things happened (i.e. Bismarck Sea).

Don't complain on one hand about the wanting to "refight history", but refuse to suffer the consequences if you do something ahistorical.




rtrapasso -> RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question (7/27/2007 3:19:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: donnie_1974_texas

I really don't have much qualms with altitude of missions except for some of the ways the game models things, which I think is what Castor is saying raises some problems.

For example,

1) 4E bombers, honestly, they hit almost all the time even at 12-15K feet once they reach 70+ experience. I believe the reason is that the game treats each bomb individually for targetting purposes. Thus, they all get X% chance to hit. Yes, however, only one bomb is allowed to hit per level bomber - but, when you have so many on one plane one will probably hit. Reality is, I doubt too many B17s were going to make a dozen passes over a target to drop their bombs one at a time - they dropped sticks of bombs typically, especially on higher altitude missions (and 12-15K is really not high altitude compared to the levels they were flying at in Europe).

2) On 4E bombers and level bombers in general. They are able to destroy industry and airfields very easily. Either that or cost to repair is too expensive - cost to expand factories may be too cheap by the way (resulting in the Japanese player with good management being able to make tons of planes - all of course with the interchangeable Nak and Mit. engines...).

Maybe hitting industry and resources in the undeveloped SRA should be easier than in the middle of a crowded German city or in a highly disperesed Japanese homeland industry of small shops - but, probably not as easy as it is in WitP. 30-40 B17s in range of your resources and oil centers - say goodbye. With a good leader with high inspiration, morale will stay up despite losses.

3) Flak - yes, there is a gap for the larger caliber AA from 6000-9000 feet. There is not enough of the light AA modelled in the game. For example, Allied infantry brigades having no AA defense at all while Zeros strafe them mercilessly at 2000 feet...I think something would have shot back, MGs in particular. There are other problems with flak. I think it generally works OK with things like defending against ground attack (when its there) and city attack. The model is perhaps wrong on Port and Airfield attacks as the bombers tend to disable a lot of the flak guns in their strikes. Of course, the other big issue is that all the flak is assumed to be at all the places - not real accurate for a 60 mile hex...

Most of the above are fundamental issues in the model and there is not much that can be done outside of changing code.

Complaints? Yeah maybe. All in all though, it is a pretty good game with extraordinary detail and complexity. Not much out there like it.



The stats show that a 4E bomber had about a 5% chance of getting a single hit on a warship in an individual attack.


Curiously, i just discovered in the Med (where Axis DID face massed B-17s), Allied pilots calculated that it took 28 tons of bombs to sink a merchantman... so, they would mass on a ship, drop (about) 56 tons of bombs, and generally (gleefully) watch the victim sink.

EDIT: Average bomb load for a B-17 in Europe was around 2.5 tons - so there would be about 24 planes (i am guessing) to do this... of course, with the shorter distances involved, it may have been 1/2 this. And to actually drop the "average" 28 tons of bombs, it was probably 6-12 aircraft.




witpqs -> RE: Bombing Alt vs enemy shipping Question (7/27/2007 5:36:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

There is a big difference in what Allied bombers COULD do and what they DID do.



Agreed. What I want is historical capabilities. These will only yield historical results if you carry out the same actions as done in WWII.




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.203125